How were the "Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven" passed from Peter to his sucsessor?

[BCPoulsen]

It is clear that Christ chose Peter to lead His Church here on earth after His death and ascension into Heaven. Peter was also promised the “keys of the kingdom of heaven” which I understand to be the authority to lead the Church. (see Mat 16:18,19).

I’ve been curious how those keys were passed and to whom they were passed. I’ve searched the Catholic Answers Library and found information about the importance of Apostalic Succession, but it was not explained how or to whom those keys were passed in the early church.

We read in the New Testament that authority was given to various people to serve in the Church and even to lead units of the church but I’ve not been able to find a reference where these keys to lead the whole Church where pasted from Peter to another.

If anyone can enlighten me on this I’d appreciate it.

 

[Volodymyr]

I wonder if this question is not malpositioned. This is a sincere question probably from sincere Catolic. You do not want opinion of non-Catolic that this never happened - I am sure. Only argument! Therefore, perhaps move question to Apology section or other such to get sincere answer of other sincere Catolics.

Храни тебя Бог!
God protect you

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

Hi BCPolsen,

I’d like you read Matthew 16:15-19, and then read Isaiah 22:22.

And then I’d like you to visit the following Web sites…
members.aol.com/johnprh/bow.html
members.aol.com/joyinliving7/keys.html
users.binary.net/polycarp/popes.html

I hope this helps you to see that the Papal Office is similar to the Davidic dynasty.

 

[BCPoulsen]

I wonder if this question is not malpositioned. This is a sincere question probably from sincere Catolic. You do not want opinion of non-Catolic that this never happened - I am sure. Only argument! Therefore, perhaps move question to Apology section or other such to get sincere answer of other sincere Catolics.

Храни тебя Бог!
God protect you

I am not Catholic so I feel this is the appropriate area to bring my questions.

The importance of proper authority in God’s Church is paramount. I have no doubt that Simon Peter was given that authority. It is to the validity of the Catholic Church’s claim to the ownership of that authority in our day that I direct my questions. What are the links in the chain of authority from Peter to Pope Benedict and how did that transition happen in the early church?

Thanks for you concern and thanks considering my questions.

 

[cilentano]

I am not Catholic so I feel this is the appropriate area to bring my questions.

The importance of proper authority in God’s Church is paramount. I have no doubt that Simon Peter was given that authority. It is to the validity of the Catholic Church’s claim to the ownership of that authority in our day that I direct my questions. **What are the links in the chain of authority from Peter to Pope Benedict **and how did that transition happen in the early church?

Thanks for you concern and thanks considering my questions.

St. Peter (32-67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125) – also called Xystus I
St. Telesphorus (125-136)
St. Hyginus (136-140)
St. Pius I (140-155)
St. Anicetus (155-166)
St. Soter (166-175)
St. Eleutherius (175-189)
St. Victor I (189-199)
St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
St. Callistus I (217-22)
St. Urban I (222-30)
St. Pontain (230-35)
St. Anterus (235-36)
St. Fabian (236-50)
St. Cornelius (251-53)
St. Lucius I (253-54)
St. Stephen I (254-257)
St. Sixtus II (257-258)
St. Dionysius (260-268)
St. Felix I (269-274)
St. Eutychian (275-283)
St. Caius (283-296) – also called Gaius
St. Marcellinus (296-304)
St. Marcellus I (308-309)
St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
St. Miltiades (311-14)
St. Sylvester I (314-35)
St. Marcus (336)
St. Julius I (337-52)
Liberius (352-66)
St. Damasus I (366-83)
St. Siricius (384-99)
St. Anastasius I (399-401)
St. Innocent I (401-17)
St. Zosimus (417-18)
St. Boniface I (418-22)
St. Celestine I (422-32)
St. Sixtus III (432-40)
St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
St. Hilarius (461-68)
St. Simplicius (468-83)
St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
St. Gelasius I (492-96)
Anastasius II (496-98)
St. Symmachus (498-514)
St. Hormisdas (514-23)
St. John I (523-26)
St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)
Boniface II (530-32)
John II (533-35)
St. Agapetus I (535-36) – also called Agapitus I
St. Silverius (536-37)
Vigilius (537-55)
Pelagius I (556-61)
John III (561-74)
Benedict I (575-79)
Pelagius II (579-90)
St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)
Sabinian (604-606)
Boniface III (607)
St. Boniface IV (608-15)
St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)
Boniface V (619-25)
Honorius I (625-38)
Severinus (640)
John IV (640-42)
Theodore I (642-49)
St. Martin I (649-55)
St. Eugene I (655-57)
St. Vitalian (657-72)
Adeodatus (II) (672-76)
Donus (676-78)
St. Agatho (678-81)
St. Leo II (682-83)
St. Benedict II (684-85)
John V (685-86)
Conon (686-87)
St. Sergius I (687-701)
John VI (701-05)
John VII (705-07)
Sisinnius (708)
Constantine (708-15)
St. Gregory II (715-31)
St. Gregory III (731-41)
St. Zachary (741-52)
Stephen II (752) – Because he died before being consecrated, some lists (including the Vatican’s official list) omit him.
Stephen III (752-57)
St. Paul I (757-67)
Stephen IV (767-72)
Adrian I (772-95)
St. Leo III (795-816)
Stephen V (816-17)
St. Paschal I (817-24)
Eugene II (824-27)
Valentine (827)
Gregory IV (827-44)
Sergius II (844-47)
St. Leo IV (847-55)
Benedict III (855-58)
St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67)
Adrian II (867-72)
John VIII (872-82)
Marinus I (882-84)
St. Adrian III (884-85)
Stephen VI (885-91)
Formosus (891-96)
Boniface VI (896)
Stephen VII (896-97)
Romanus (897)
Theodore II (897)
John IX (898-900)
Benedict IV (900-03)
Leo V (903)
Sergius III (904-11)
Anastasius III (911-13)
Lando (913-14)
John X (914-28)
Leo VI (928)
Stephen VIII (929-31)
John XI (931-35)
Leo VII (936-39)
Stephen IX (939-42)
Marinus II (942-46)
Agapetus II (946-55)
John XII (955-63)
Leo VIII (963-64)
Benedict V (964)
John XIII (965-72)
Benedict VI (973-74)
Benedict VII (974-83)
John XIV (983-84)
John XV (985-96)
Gregory V (996-99)
Sylvester II (999-1003)

cont…

 

[cilentano]

John XVII (1003)
John XVIII (1003-09)
Sergius IV (1009-12)
Benedict VIII (1012-24)
John XIX (1024-32)
Benedict IX (1032-45) Benedict IX appears on this list three separate times, because he was twice removed and restored (see below)
Sylvester III (1045) – Considered by some to be an antipope
Benedict IX (1045)
Gregory VI (1045-46)
Clement II (1046-47)
Benedict IX (1047-48)
Damasus II (1048)
St. Leo IX (1049-54)
Victor II (1055-57)
Stephen X (1057-58)
Nicholas II (1058-61)
Alexander II (1061-73)
St. Gregory VII (1073-85)
Blessed Victor III (1086-87)
Blessed Urban II (1088-99)
Paschal II (1099-1118)
Gelasius II (1118-19)
Callistus II (1119-24)
Honorius II (1124-30)
Innocent II (1130-43)
Celestine II (1143-44)
Lucius II (1144-45)
Blessed Eugene III (1145-53)
Anastasius IV (1153-54)
Adrian IV (1154-59)
Alexander III (1159-81)
Lucius III (1181-85)
Urban III (1185-87)
Gregory VIII (1187)
Clement III (1187-91)
Celestine III (1191-98)
Innocent III (1198-1216)
Honorius III (1216-27)
Gregory IX (1227-41)
Celestine IV (1241)
Innocent IV (1243-54)
Alexander IV (1254-61)
Urban IV (1261-64)
Clement IV (1265-68)
Blessed Gregory X (1271-76)
Blessed Innocent V (1276)
Adrian V (1276)
John XXI (1276-77)
Nicholas III (1277-80)
Martin IV (1281-85)
Honorius IV (1285-87)
Nicholas IV (1288-92)
St. Celestine V (1294)
Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04)
Clement V (1305-14)
John XXII (1316-34)
Benedict XII (1334-42)
Clement VI (1342-52)
Innocent VI (1352-62)
Blessed Urban V (1362-70)
Gregory XI (1370-78)
Urban VI (1378-89)
Boniface IX (1389-1404)
Innocent VII (1404-06)
Gregory XII (1406-15)
Martin V (1417-31)
Eugene IV (1431-47)
Nicholas V (1447-55)
Callistus III (1455-58)
Pius II (1458-64)
Paul II (1464-71)
Sixtus IV (1471-84)
Innocent VIII (1484-92)
Alexander VI (1492-1503)
Pius III (1503)
Julius II (1503-13)
Leo X (1513-21)
Adrian VI (1522-23)
Clement VII (1523-34)
Paul III (1534-49)
Julius III (1550-55)
Marcellus II (1555)
Paul IV (1555-59)
Pius IV (1559-65)
St. Pius V (1566-72)
Gregory XIII (1572-85)
Sixtus V (1585-90)
Urban VII (1590)
Gregory XIV (1590-91)
Innocent IX (1591)
Clement VIII (1592-1605)
Leo XI (1605)
Paul V (1605-21)
Gregory XV (1621-23)
Urban VIII (1623-44)
Innocent X (1644-55)
Alexander VII (1655-67)
Clement IX (1667-69)
Clement X (1670-76)
Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89)
Alexander VIII (1689-91)
Innocent XII (1691-1700)
Clement XI (1700-21)
Innocent XIII (1721-24)
Benedict XIII (1724-30)
Clement XII (1730-40)
Benedict XIV (1740-58)
Clement XIII (1758-69)
Clement XIV (1769-74)
Pius VI (1775-99)
Pius VII (1800-23)
Leo XII (1823-29)
Pius VIII (1829-30)
Gregory XVI (1831-46)
Blessed Pius IX (1846-78)
Leo XIII (1878-1903)
St. Pius X (1903-14)

Benedict XV (1914-22)
Pius XI (1922-39)
Pius XII (1939-58)
Blessed John XXIII (1958-63)
Paul VI (1963-78)
John Paul I (1978)
John Paul II (1978-2005)
Benedict XVI (2005—)

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Hi BCPolsen,

I’d like you read Matthew 16:15-19, and then read Isaiah 22:22.

And then I’d like you to visit the following Web sites…
members.aol.com/johnprh/bow.html
members.aol.com/joyinliving7/keys.html
users.binary.net/polycarp/popes.html

I hope this helps you to see that the Papal Office is similar to the Davidic dynasty.

While you are at it, take a look at the Douay-Rheims Bible: its heading for Isaiah 22, reads:

The prophet laments the devastation of Juda. He foretells the deprivation of Sobna, and the substitution of Eliacim, **a figure of Christ. **
drbo.org/chapter/27022.htm

I’m also curious, how this modern interpretation of Eliakim interprets verse 25: In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall the peg be removed, that was fastened in the sure place: and it shall be broken and shall fall: and that which hung thereon, shall perish, because the Lord hath spoken it.

The fact that your web sites stop short at verse 24, and therefore omit 25, shows that they have no answer if this modern ultramontanist interpretation is true.

Your one website correctly points out that Matthew 16 speaks in the future tense, not the present. It omits, however Matthew 18:18, where the Lord speaks in the present tense, to ALL the disciples, with virutal identical wording of the description of the Office of the Keys, but with out the title (and in the plural, and present tense)

Matthew 16 και δωσω σοι τας κλεις της βασιλειας των ουρανων και ο εαν δησης επι της γης εσται δεδεμενον εν τοις ουρανοις και ο εαν λυσης επι της γης εσται λελυμενον εν τοις ουρανοις.
Matthew 18 αμην λεγω υμιν οσα εαν δησητε επι της γης εσται δεδεμενα εν τω ουρανω και οσα εαν λυσητε επι της γης εσται λελυμενα εν τω ουρανω

Matthew 16 ܠܟ ܐܬܠ ܩܠܝܕܐ ܕܡܠܟܘܬܐ ܕܫܡܝܐ ܘܟܠ ܡܕܡ ܕܬܐܤܘܪ ܒܐܪܥܐ ܢܗܘܐ ܐܤܝܪ ܒܫܡܝܐ ܘܡܕܡ ܕܬܫܪܐ ܒܐܪܥܐ ܢܗܘܐ ܫܪܐ ܒܫܡܝܐ
Matthew 18
ܘܐܡܝܢ ܐܡܪ ܐܢܐ ܠܟܘܢ ܕܟܠ ܡܐ ܕܬܐܤܪܘܢ ܒܐܪܥܐ ܢܗܘܐ ܐܤܝܪ ܒܫܡܝܐ ܘܡܕܡ ܕܬܫܪܘܢ ܒܐܪܥܐ ܢܗܘܐ ܫܪܐ ܒܫܡܝܐ

In the ontological sense of the episcopacy, all the bishops are successors of St. Peter, as the Fathers taught.

This question does hit on one most ultramontanists do not even consider: even if one could prove that St. Peter was the Prince of the Apostles in the way they say, that does not show that the office passed on to his successors at Rome on the one hand, nor why it does not pass to his successors at Antioch on the other. Hence the invention of the Eliakim eisogesis, which evidently does not even pre-date the English Reformation.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

St. Peter (32-67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)

Btw, Antioch can produce a list just as long (actually longer, as St. Peter founded the patriarchy there before Rome).

In reference to the succession at Rome, a curious problem is presented by the Apostolic Constitutions, a corpus alluded to by reference to the associated Apostolic Canons in c. viii of the Third Ecumenical Council, said association stated (and laid aside) by c. ii of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (Quintsext in Trullo), confirmed for Rome by Pope Hadrian I:

XLVI. Now concerning those bishops which have been ordained in our lifetime, we let you know that they are these:–James the bishop of Jerusalem, the brother of our Lord;
NOTE: St. James and the line at Jerusalem comes first (this comes first business, of course, is made much of in ultramontanist writings).

upon whose death the second was Simeon the son of Cleopas; after whom the third was Judas the son of James. Of Caesarea of Palestine, the first was Zacchaeus, who was once a publican; after whom was Cornelius, and the third Theophilus. Of Antioch, Euodius, ordained by me Peter; and Ignatius by Paul. Of Alexandria, Annianus was the first, ordained by Mark the evangelist; the second Avilius by Luke, who was also an evangelist.

NOTE: the first bishop (the Apostles are not really bishops, as the bishops are their successors) of Antioch was ordained by St. Peter himself. Note also that one Apostle ordains, whereas three bishops are required in general to ordain another bishop.

Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul; and Clemens, after Linus’ death, the second, ordained by me Peter.
piney.com/DocAposConstitu2.html
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.ix.viii.iv.html

It is interesting that St. Linus is said to predecease St. Peter (which help explain why Tertullian skips him and goes on to (Ana)Cletus as second bishop of Rome). Also note, St. Paul, NOT St. Peter, is said to ordain him. How then, if the ultramontanists are correct that there can only be one head, was St. Linus a pope in the ultramontanist sense?

 

[Claire_from_DE]

This is an interesting question. We know that the office was passed on (as the office of keeper of the keys continued to exist while there were kings in Israel). The early church recognized that the bishops of Rome after Peter’s death continued to hold this office. Hopefully the church history buffs will be able to enlighten us on this.

 

[Lehl]

It is clear that Christ chose Peter to lead His Church here on earth after His death and ascension into Heaven. Peter was also promised the “keys of the kingdom of heaven” which I understand to be the authority to lead the Church. (see Mat 16:18,19).

I’ve been curious how those keys were passed and to whom they were passed. I’ve searched the Catholic Answers Library and found information about the importance of Apostalic Succession, but it was not explained how or to whom those keys were passed in the early church.

We read in the New Testament that authority was given to various people to serve in the Church and even to lead units of the church but I’ve not been able to find a reference where these keys to lead the whole Church where pasted from Peter to another.

If anyone can enlighten me on this I’d appreciate it.

I understand that you are posing this question from an LDS background, so immediately I am suspicious.

We’ve gone around and around with Mormons on this topic time and time again here as I am sure you know. I know you’re on this board all the time; I’m not–and yet I’ve seen this topic a million times.

I don’t know…maybe you’re finally realizing that Christ’s church, the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, IS the only one with the “Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.”

Mormons speak of the “keys” almost as if they are tangible. I understand from reading Mormons in these threads, that if there isn’t photographic evidence of Peter HANDING the keys over to the next Pope, and then so forth…then there was a “break” in the apostolic succession and therefore the “keys” were lost and the church is no longer acting with the proper authority.

I always bring up the shady and VERY questionable transference of “prophethood” from Joseph Smith to Brigham Young for comparision.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

But really, it is a great question. I’m Catholic but haven’t read much about how the early church continued on as the apostles died off. The church did continue, the teachings were passed along, heresies were refuted. I know that Peter’s office, what we refer to now as the papacy, was passed to the first popes on the long list already posted. Do we know what was going on at the time Peter died and how the office was passed on? This all happened under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The answer does not in any way weaken my faith in Jesus and His Church and the pope. But it would be interesting to know the answer.

 

[cathgal]

But really, it is a great question. I’m Catholic but haven’t read much about how the early church continued on as the apostles died off. The church did continue, the teachings were passed along, heresies were refuted. I know that Peter’s office, what we refer to now as the papacy, was passed to the first popes on the long list already posted. Do we know what was going on at the time Peter died and how the office was passed on? This all happened under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The answer does not in any way weaken my faith in Jesus and His Church and the pope. But it would be interesting to know the answer.

Simple.

Peter elects the next successor.

It was told by the early church father, St. Irenaeus.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

… I’m also curious, how this modern interpretation of Eliakim interprets verse 25: In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall the peg be removed, that was fastened in the sure place: and it shall be broken and shall fall: and that which hung thereon, shall perish, because the Lord hath spoken it.

The fact that your web sites stop short at verse 24, and therefore omit 25, shows that they have no answer if this modern ultramontanist interpretation is true…

I’ve been through this before on a different thread last year. You may want to check it out for more info…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2367500#post2367500

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Simple.

Peter elects the next successor.

It was told by the early church father, St. Irenaeus.

Thanks, I’m going to look it up.

 

[BCPoulsen]

Hi BCPolsen,

I’d like you read Matthew 16:15-19, and then read Isaiah 22:22.

And then I’d like you to visit the following Web sites…
members.aol.com/johnprh/bow.html
members.aol.com/joyinliving7/keys.html
users.binary.net/polycarp/popes.html

I hope this helps you to see that the Papal Office is similar to the Davidic dynasty.

Interesting study. I love the way the Isaiah was able to weave current events into prophecies about the future especially about the coming of the Messiah as is the case here. Thank you.

 

[BCPoulsen]

St. Peter (32-67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)

…

Benedict XV (1914-22)
Pius XI (1922-39)
Pius XII (1939-58)
Blessed John XXIII (1958-63)
Paul VI (1963-78)
John Paul I (1978)
John Paul II (1978-2005)
Benedict XVI (2005—)

Thank You

 

[BCPoulsen]

This question does hit on one most ultramontanists do not even consider: even if one could prove that St. Peter was the Prince of the Apostles in the way they say, that does not show that the office passed on to his successors at Rome on the one hand, nor why it does not pass to his successors at Antioch on the other. Hence the invention of the Eliakim eisogesis, which evidently does not even pre-date the English Reformation.

This is the same question I had as I studied the history of the early successors and considered your comments and references. In this reference that you offered ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.ix.viii.iv.html I counted at least 20 parishes each of which had their own leadership. It seems obvious that the function of a Bishop is to oversee individual branches of the church rather than to lead the church as a whole. The Bishops were called and Ordained by the Apostles; “These are the bishops who are entrusted by us with the parishes in the Lord.” How did the authority of the Bishop of one branch become the authority to govern the entire church?

Another interesting point found in that document (if I understand it correctly) is that Linus died before Peter. “Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul; and Clemens, after Linus’ death, the second, ordained by me Peter.” I don’t understand how Linus succeeded Peter if Peter outlived Linus.

 

[PaulDupre]

Because the pope does not choose or ordain his successor. The pope, remember, is the Bishop of Rome. When a pope dies, the college of bishops elects a new pope under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Remember that the keys are held by the college of bishops (the successors to the apostles), with the pope (the Bishop of Rome) at their head.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

816 “The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it… This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him.” 267

The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains: "For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God." 268

Paul

 

[Lehl]

Another interesting point found in that document (if I understand it correctly) is that Linus died before Peter. “Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul; and Clemens, after Linus’ death, the second, ordained by me Peter.” I don’t understand how Linus succeeded Peter if Peter outlived Linus.

This just refers to their ordinations as bishops, NOT their ordination as the Bishop of Rome.

 

[BCPoulsen]

I understand that you are posing this question from an LDS background, so immediately I am suspicious.

We’ve gone around and around with Mormons on this topic time and time again here as I am sure you know. I know you’re on this board all the time; I’m not–and yet I’ve seen this topic a million times.

I don’t know…maybe you’re finally realizing that Christ’s church, the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, IS the only one with the “Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.”

Mormons speak of the “keys” almost as if they are tangible. I understand from reading Mormons in these threads, that if there isn’t photographic evidence of Peter HANDING the keys over to the next Pope, and then so forth…then there was a “break” in the apostolic succession and therefore the “keys” were lost and the church is no longer acting with the proper authority.

I always bring up the shady and VERY questionable transference of “prophethood” from Joseph Smith to Brigham Young for comparision.

I respect your suspicion. Let me assure you that I am here to become enlightened and to gain knowledge. I have no intention to degrade anyone or to push an agenda. I believe that we must “prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1Thes 5:21). The best way to understand what Catholics believe is to visit with Catholics. I’m grateful that I’m welcomed here to ask questions and to voice my opinion - even if it may be contrary to some. My thanks to you and to the others who have taken the time to discuss these issues with me.

About your inference (or I should say accusation) of a “questionable transference of prophethood” in the early history of our church. There was nothing shady or questionable in the way the Keys of the Priesthood passed from Joseph Smith to Brigham Young. It was understood by Joseph Smith and the Apostles (as it was, in my opinion, understood by Peter and the Apostles of old) that the keys were held by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. When Joseph was murdered leadership of the church immediately passed to the Apostles who already had the proper authority. Brigham Young, as senior Apostle, took charge and was later confirmed by the Apostles and sustained by the membership of the church as the Prophet, Seer and Revelator and President of the Church. This same pattern has been followed ever since as we saw a week or so ago with the passing of President Hinckley.